W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2003

Draft WebOnt Meeting Record, 2003-09-11

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:18:39 -0400
Message-Id: <200309151718.h8FHIdQB016201@roke.hawke.org>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org


--- 1. convene, take roll, assign scribe, review record

Chair:  Jim Hendler
Scribe: Sandro Hawke
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0091.html
IRCLog: http://www.w3.org/2003/09/11-webont-irc

Present: Sandro Hawke, Jean-Francois Baget, Jeff Heflin, Ian Horrocks,
Sean Bechhofer, Dan Connolly, Herman ter Horst, Jim Hendler, Jeremy
Carroll, Mike Dean, Charles White, Jos de Roo (partial), Deborah
McGuinness (partial).

RESOLVED: to accept
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0051.html
as a true record of Sept 4 telecon.

--- 2. Review agenda and misc actions, plan next meeting

Discussion of schedule.  Clarified: we're back to weekly.

RESOLVED: Meeting 18 September, Chair Guus, focus: Outreach
(no scribe chosen)

ACTION: Jim will report back on status of Gene Ontology
Consortium re OWL.   
CONTINUED

      -- discussion --

      Jim: No such single entity which could endorse OWL, I'm still
           trying to learn who controls their website.

      DanC: I'd like them to recommend OWL on their site
  
      Jim: That's my goal.  We may need to refine this action
      item, but let's keep it here so it doesn't get forgotten.

--- 3. Approve Tests 

RESOLVED: to approve the set of twice-passed proposed tests (less the
syntax ones) as given in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0108.html

ACTION: JJC change status of all these tests in the editor's draft.

--- 4. DL Syntax, B1/B2

... ACTION: Peter Patel-Schneider: to look over Jeremy's B1 B2 proof
revision. Continued until next week.
DONE

... ACTION: Dan C. - Add links to implementation report describing Guus'
summary from editors meeting and Jeremy email.
DONE
    -- discussion --

    JJC: Peter found a flaw in the proof that will take time to patch.
         Since we now have enough syntax checkers, we probably do not need
         this.  Does the WG want more work on this? 

    Ian: We agreed to try to a certain extent. It seems like JJC has
         reached that extent. 

    DanC: The people passing the tests kind of won this race. :-)

    Jim: According to my folks doing implementations, it's not
         implementing it that's hard, it's understanding the constraints
         that's hard.  

    JJC: OWL Implementor's Guide would be nice; maybe we can encourage it....

    DanC: Document which were more implementor friendly would be nice,
          but... the test results suggest this is good enough. 
 
    JimH: Having some published guidance for implementors on B1/B2
          would be especially nice

    Sean: I may well something in this area, in the course of my work.

    JJC: there's a possible test case here, as far as we got.

    JimH: you're always encouraged to propose tests

    DanC: let the record show that the WG encourages folks to document
          the mapping in implementor-friendly terms and let us know. 

    JimH: Do we need to close this officially?

    DanC: No. 

    JimH: We could tell the world this is no longer at risk.

    JimH: ... but lets keep our options open.

    JJC: Implementors might want to know the odds have changed, and
         the "at risk" feature is more likely to stay.

    DanC: The implementation report shows they're okay....

ACTION JimH: check process doc re: features at Risk

-- 5. Internationalization

... ACTION: Guus S. will review.
DONE

... ACTION: Guus Schreiber will send some examples of use of xml:lang to
webont mailing list.
DONE

The chair was not comfortable proceeding in Guus' absense.  

JJC notes RDF Core has just published a new suite of drafts; now is
the time to comment on I18N issues.  

--- 6. Test review

...ACTION: Jeremy C. to study DL 909 and report back.
DONE

Discussion of extra credit, incompleteness of full reasoners

JJC: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0103.html

    Jos agrees a consistency test is not passed by merely failing to
    find an inconsistency.  Agreed to change Euler's published
    results.

    Sandro notes Euler results were used in our decision earlier this
    meeting to approve proposed tests; this means many will have been
    passed only once.  People point out that was typically the
    criterion before; no interest in reconsidering.

    Sandro: what exactly do we mean by 80% full, ... ?

    DanC: we dont need to formalize it that much

    JimH: Pellet doesnt claim to be Full, but it does lots of Full stuff

    Jos: What should we do about the tests that Euler fails, due to it
         being a DL-semantics test, and Euler using Full-semantics?

    Sandro: The test shouldn't even be given to Euler, since it
            doesn't apply.

    DanC: there are two semantics; this test shows the difference between them.

    JJC: it's not wholey satisfactory, but it's not wholey broken.

    JimH: You CANT get 100% of all tests, since you'll be using one
          semantics or the other. 

    JimH: or you can, if you define things differently.

    JJC: On these two tests: one is Lite, one is Full. Other tests are
         both lite AND Full. 

    JJC: doc suggest you don't give a Lite reasoner a Full test, etc.

    Sean: I just ignored all Full tests.

    DanC: I dunno if the systems need to say whether they're full or
          not.  I'm happy with just "no data". I suppose "not applicable" is
          an improvement, but not a critical one. 

    JJC: sounds like we need systems to be categorized (Lite/Full,
           and Datatype support); and we get true "N/A" not just "no data" 

    Ian: your system needs to advertise which semantics it uses: DL or Full.

    Sandro: Of course then we might have hybrid reasoners which can
            offer both....

    (various murmurs of yeah, that's how it may well work.)

--- 7 EXIT CRITERION


7.1 Action review:

ACTION: Jim Hendler - Report PELLET status re complete OWL Lite
consistency checkers
CONTINUED (nearly done)

ACTION: Ian Horrocks - Report Cerebra and Racer status re complete OWL Lite
consistency checkers
CONTINUED (nearly done)    

...ACTION: Charles White will collect data on test detail. Send him lists
of test you have passed.
DONE (by Sandro)

ACTION: Sandro - Report reasoning status re useful subsets of OWL
Full.
CONTINIUED

...ACTION: Jos de Roo - Sandro will ask him to report reasoning status
of Euler.
DONE

...ACTION: Jeremy - Will ask Dave Reynolds re reasoner status over useful
subsets of OWL Full.
DONE.  (Jena team has promised repory; Jeremy did his part.)

...ACTION: Sean B. - Report officially on species validation syntactic
checks.
DONE

...ACTION: Peter Patel-Schneider - Will report on DL once problem with
Galex fixed (exp. in a week).
DONE

...ACTION: Ian Horrocks - Confirm that Network Inference passes all owl
syntax checks.
DONE

ACTION: Jim Hendler - Check with Bijan re owl syntax checkers passing
all tests
CONTINUED

7.2

Discussion of Sandro's (amazingly cool!) RDF-based test result page
http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out


--- [Extra] Next Steps (DanC)

    DanC: Ask for PR. Not before 20th. It's okay to do another CR
         draft, if we want 

    JJC: We could change the links to RDF, now that their WDs are published

ACTION Ian: report back on whether RDF WDs are as expected by S&AS

    JJC: if we have a long CR we should repub TEST

    JimH: yeah

ACTION JimH: discuss PR schedule with CG

    JimH: good time to update TEST when we think we're done with it, and ready for PR.

--- [Extra] E-mail to RDF IG calling attention to OTR

ACTION Sandro: send email (rdf-interest, rdf-logic) about
http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out, asking for
more data 

--- [Extra] FAQ, Outreach

    JimH: My FAQ is "about OWL", at the press-release level.

    Deb: Mine was at the how-to-do-this-in-OWL level

    Deb: Does W3C have a good mechanism for maintaining FAQs?

    DanC: I dunno...   We have lots of mechanisms; no clear winner

    Guus: I will put this on the agenda for next week

    DanC: I'm inclined to take your Cookbook entry and put it on esw
          Wiki http://esw.w3.org/topic/ 

    JimH: Having it keep running post WG (eg Wiki) would be good

ACTION DanC: Propose Wiki be used for FAQ

    DanC: let's talk about ISWC next week too

    URL for OntoWeb SIG meeting:

    http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Ehorrocks/OntoWeb/SIG/node9.html

ACTION DanC: summarize OWL press coverage

ACTION Guus: send overview of ISWC-related events 

---- ADJOURN after 1:24
Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 13:18:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT